About your Search

20121101
20121130
Search Results 0 to 9 of about 10 (some duplicates have been removed)
happy to have that discussion with them. but for them to go after the u.n. ambassador, who had nothing to do with benghazi? and was simply making a presentation based on intelligence that she had received and to besmirch her reputation? is outrageous. >> sean: i hope you were paying very close attention there. because as usual when the teleprompters are not scrolling, the truth magically comes out. what you heard from the president for the first time, he admitted that rice was sent on the sunday shows, quote, at the request of the white house. now, if that is in fact the case and if susan rice was following marching orders from the president himself, well, that means she went into battle armed with white house talking points. and what do those talking points say? it appears they told her to ignore the intelligence committee because they knew within 24 hours al qaeda was behind this strike. instead of telling the truth, she repeatedly blamed the death of a u.s. ambassador and three other americans on this, quote, youtube video. why? because that's what she was told to do. she was follow
is telling the american people something that is factually inaccurate and two weeks later at u.n., and answering questions in two separate media interviews, when the president's asked, he is referring to the youtube video. how is that possible? >> it is not. to me, it cannot be justified. it cannot be plained because the intelligence community's own analises, we saw the memos today, they said that al qaeda-affiliated groups were directly involved in these attacks. there is no way this can be explained. in fact, certainly on the videos there is no sign of any demonstration, there was no demitration. you know, they say the different reports coming in, always, there is always a fog of war. but the preponderance of the evidence from the start was this this was clearly a terrorist-directed attack. but general petraeus briefed us and discounted that and said it was not a terrorist attack. there may have been terrorists in the crowd, but there are terrorists everywhere in libya. >> sean: but he was not under oath. he said today he wanted to clarify those remarks? >> well, if he does, i
to america. "hannity" starts right here, right now. new troubles for u.n. ambassador susan rice this as questions surface about her time at the state department when al-qaeda bombed two african embassies in the late '90s, and how the situation parallels what happened prior to the terror attack in benghazi that left four americans dead. yesterday republican senator susan collins met with ambassador rice for 90 minutes, and after the closed-door meeting the senator questioned rice's role at the state department back in 1998 when she served as the assistant secretary of state for african affairs in the clinton administration. watch this. >> those bombings in 1998 resulted in the loss of life of 12 americans as well as many other foreign nationals, and 4,000 people were injured. and what troubles me so much is the benghazi attack in many ways echoed the attacks on those embassies in 1998 when susan rice was head of the african region for our state department. in both cases, the ambassador begged for additional security. the ambassador to kenya sent repeated messages to the state dep
Search Results 0 to 9 of about 10 (some duplicates have been removed)